Also, Rpenner hasn't posted errors which are ''unfixable'' like you began to suspiciously claim LOL Actually the mistakes Rpenner pointed out, and suggestions have been noted and taken aboard, unlike you.

Has Tach realized yet that the problem in his interpretation of the problem is the fact that in the rest frame of the camera and the light source, the instaneous velocity of the mirror, and the tangential velocity of the mirror are only paralell at two points on the circumference of the wheel (or tube), and so there are only two locations in the cycle where the mirrors instantaneous velocity is paralell to the tangent plane, and so there are only two locations where there is no doppler shift?

Click to expand...

Of course I realize that this claim is false. This is precisely the nature of my debate with pete.

Click to expand...

Tach has been arguing for null Doppler shift around the entire wheel, so it is clear that he does not agree with the last phrase of Trippy's post, "...only two locations where there is no doppler shift..."

But it is a mystery to me how how he can dismiss the rest of Trippy's post out of hand. Maybe he only reads the last line of posts.

Tach has been arguing for null Doppler shift around the entire wheel, so it is clear that he does not agree with the last phrase of Trippy's post, "...only two locations where there is no doppler shift..."

But it is a mystery to me how how he can dismiss the rest of Trippy's post out of hand.

Click to expand...

Because Trippy has not provided any proof. Last we talked, he was going to work on it.

Also, Rpenner hasn't posted errors which are ''unfixable'' like you began to suspiciously claim LOL Actually the mistakes Rpenner pointed out, and suggestions have been noted and taken aboard, unlike you.

Remember TACH? I explained to you why this is not good conduct. I even gave you reasons why... to which you then edited your post and gave no reason whatsoever. And I don't mean a spelling mistake Tach... I mean entire new sentances!!!!!!

You know what, I even said to you this morning on your personalized page in your account that it be best to stay away from each other. You started this again today as soon as you realized I posted an Essay on Black Holes, you simply couldn't resist the chance. Well I hope to god that many more people can see through your own obvious attempts at dodging providing proof or simply unwarranted editing for creating completely new literature into your work!

Because Trippy has not provided any proof. Last we talked, he was going to work on it.

Click to expand...

What I have at this point are a series of (admittedly) not quite complete sketches, to scale (approximately), which are a formal consideration of the various geometric considerations of the classical limit of the scenarion in question, which suggest an error on Tach's part, which I alluded to in prose form. All of which will be lorentz transformed (when/if I can be bothered) to illustrate that the error which has been suggested (if it persists when I have finished) exists both in the classical limit, and the relativistic correction.

I make no apologies for being such a visual thinker, indeed, being such a visual thinker has worked to my advantage, rather than my detriment, in a number ways.

Besides, I notice that for all your bluster, you did no derivation whatsoever.

Click to expand...

Impatient much?

Yet, if what you were claiming were true , it would apply to the angle between a ray of light (representing vector 1) and the direction source - observer (representing vector 2). The aberration formula preservers angles multiple of \(\pi\), your erroneous claim would invalidate it.

Click to expand...

Nope. Different situation.

Wait a sec, for two days you were chomping at the bit to "show me" how to do the angle transformations, now that I showed you where you made the mistake you need more time "to translate to tex"? I thought you were itching to prove me wrong and that you had all the calculations at your fingertips.

Click to expand...

You thought wrong. I have a life, sciforums is occasional entertainment.

Nope, not clear at all.
Are they displacement vectors? Velocity vectors? Something else?
What exactly do those vectors represent?

Click to expand...

Forget about it, I used your ownderivation to prove you wrong. I figured that since you can only accept your own math, I'd better use it. Which is precisely what I did. Don't tell me that you did not see the post that refutes you.

Tach, when someone asks for clarification of your work, it's polite to provide some explanation.

Can you explain what r and N represent, or are you just abandoning that document?

Click to expand...

r is the positional vector, you can recognize it from any textbook, its Lorentz transform is unmistakable.N is an arbitrary sliding vector signifying either the tangent to the mirror plane, it normal or the velocity of an object.